Replies

You're right. I thought it was a letter.

Here is his statement in a synopsis from his own testimony.

My testimony today will focus on many of the recommendations contained in the U.S.-Mexican bishops’ joint letter, including 1) the need to address the root causes of migration so that migrants can remain home to support themselves and their families; 2) the need to reform U.S. immigration policy so that migrants can enter in a safe, legal, orderly, and humane manner; 3) the need to reevaluate our immigration enforcement policies so that the abuse, exploitation, and death of migrants are eliminated at the same time legitimate national security concerns are addressed; and 4) the need to restore due process protections for immigrants and their families.

Nowhere does he talk about enforcement of current laws. It's all about gaming/working/changing the system to open the floodgates.

You really should read the link in post 1.

Here is another excerpt:

D. Enforcement Policies Madam Chairman, we believe that the best way to secure our borders and to ensure that our immigration laws are just and humane is to enact comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Others maintain that the United States must first “secure its border” and only then consider broader immigration reforms.

We believe that enforcement is part of a immigration reform package, but must be complemented with reforms in the legal immigration system. “Enforcement First” has been the de facto U.S. strategy for over twenty years, yielding too many costs and too few results. The costs have indeed run high. Since 1993, Congress has appropriated and the federal government has spent about $50 billion on border enforcement, multiplying the number of Border Patrol agents by a factor of five (over 20,000 agents)12 and introducing technology and fencing along the border.13 Border Patrol in particular has seen a ninefold budget increase since 1992.14 Border fencing and other physical barriers have cost $2.6 billion since fiscal year 2005.15

In addition, the Obama Administration has continued enforcement initiatives, increasing the number of detention beds, committing National Guard troops to the border, and pledging an additional $500 million in border enforcement funding. Proponents of an enforcement first strategy counter that enforcement is worth the investment. They point to border apprehensions between ports of entry which have dropped from 1.7 million in FY 2005 to 556,000 in FY 2009.16 While the economic recession explains part of this trend, many argue that border enforcement efforts should be credited as well. The problem is that apprehensions are only part of the story; unauthorized migrants continue to enter the country in significant numbers. Over 500,000 unauthorized migrants entered through the southern border annually between 2005-2008.17 Tragically, since 1998 nearly 5,000 migrants have perished in the desert trying to enter the United States.18 This trend shown no signs of decreasing -- border deaths in 2009 reached their highest level in three years, despite the efforts of Border Patrol teams that have rescued thousands of desert-crossers.19 Judging by these measures, enforcement first has largely failed to end illegal immigration on its own.

This “enforcement first” strategy has failed partly because of its unintended effects. For instance, by tightening border checkpoints, it has spawned a booming human smuggling industry. In fact, these “coyotes” have become very good at evading detection, helping migrants gain a nearly 100% success rate at eventually entering the United States.20 Border security build-up has also disrupted “circular migration” – preventing some immigrants from returning home to Mexico and Central America after a few years of work in the United States. Instead, these workers bring their families to settle in the United States.

At root, “enforcement first” has failed because it has not addressed the underlying cause of illegal immigration: an outdated immigration system that does not meet the economy’s demand for workers. We are hopeful that comprehensive immigration policy reform which emphasizes legal avenues for migration will mitigate the perceived need for continuing to increase the number of border patrol agents and the amount and length of border fencing. Such reform could alleviate the pressure on border enforcement by undermining human smuggling operations and reducing the flow of undocumented migrants across the border. It also could help create a more stable atmosphere for the implementation of enforcement reforms, such as biometric visas and passports, which will help better identify those who come to harm us.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer the position of the USCCB on several enforcement issues you may consider during consideration of comprehensive immigration a mandatory electronic verification system on employers nationwide, so that employees who are hired are in the country legally and authorized to work. While we are not per se opposed to such a system, several steps must be taken to ensure that any system is applied uniformly and accurately. We would not oppose the adoption of a mandatory employer verification system provided that 1) it is accompanied by a broad-based legalization program, so that all workers have an opportunity to become legal and not remain outside of the system; 2) the system is phased in at a reasonable rate with objective benchmarks so implementation is feasible for both employers and the government; 3) inaccuracies in the government databases used to cross-check identification and eligibility are corrected so that employees are not wrongfully dismissed; 3) protections are put in place so that employers do not use the system to wrongfully discharge certain employees; and 4) employees who have a false positive are given the opportunity to correct any misinformation that lead to the false positive.

His conclusion is that our current system is broken and needs to be fixed to accommodate his open borders policy. There is nowhere in his statement that the current laws should be honored.

Then there is this passage which I find offensive and particularly shameful:

The Catholic Church is an immigrant church. More than one-third of Catholics in the United States are of Hispanic origin. The Church in the United States is also made up of more than 58 ethnic groups from throughout the world, including Asia, Africa, the Near East, and Latin America.

The man is a bald-faced liar. The Catholic Church is not an "immigrant Church".

This whole statement reads right out of anything La Raza or any other open borders organization. He has totally politicized himself with this statement by quoting AFL-CIO statements. He stands for everything that is wrong with the immigration debate.

Yes, the headline is totally misleading. It's meant to convey to Catholics that the Church is behind law enforcement - if only they would open the borders.